DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 6, 9, 11, and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11928844. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims of instant applicant are anticipated by claims of U.S. Patent No. 11928844 as shown below.
Claim 1 of instant application (encoding method) <= Claims 1, 4, 11 of ‘844 patent
Claim 2 of instant application (decoding method) <= Claims 6, 9, 12 of ‘844 patent
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 (U.S. PG-PUB NO. 2020/0334866) in view of D2 (U.S. PG-PUB NO. 2022/0051443).
-Regarding claim 1, D1 discloses a three-dimensional data encoding method (see abstract), comprising: encoding geometry information of each of three-dimensional points based on a method (module M1 determines, for an octree-based coding mode OCM associated with an encompassing cube C, a best octree-based structure O from N candidate octree-based structures On, [0086]; module M2 determines, for a projection-based coding mode PCM associated with the same encompassing cube C, by performing a RDO process, a best projection PR of the points Por of the input colored point cloud IPC which are included in the encompassing cube C from U candidate projections PRu, [0090]); generating including the geometry information encoded used for the encoding (a module M3 encodes a coding mode information data CMID representative of said coding mode associated with the minimal cost, [0099]; Each transmitted packet P comprises a header H and a payload PAYLOAD, [0264]); and generating a bitstream; wherein in the generating of the bitstream: when the encoding is performed based on a first method using an octree, the bitstream includes one or more parameters used for the encoding in the first method (encoded octree information data OID and/or the encoded leaf node information data LID and/or the color assigned to leaf points may be stored and/or transmitted in a bitstream F1, [0165]); and when the encoding is performed based on a second method without using the octree, the bitstream does not include the one or more parameters used for the encoding in the first method (encoded texture and depth images and/or the projection information data may be stored and/or transmitted in at least one bitstream. For example, the encoded texture and depth images are transmitted in a bitstream F3 and the encoded projection information data is transmitted in a bitstream F4, [0168]).
D1 is silent to teaching that a geometry data unit and a header including information indicating the method. However, the claimed limitation is well known in the art as evidenced by D2.
In the same field of endeavor, D2 teaches a geometry data unit and a header including information indicating the method (each V-PCC unit has a V-PCC unit header and a V-PCC unit payload. The V-PCC unit header describes the V-PCC unit type, [0095]; V-PCC units with unit types 2, 3, and 4, may respectively be defined (e.g., in the V-PCC CD) as occupancy, geometry, and attribute data units, [0096]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of D1 with the teaching of D2 in order to reduce bitstream overhead.
-Regarding claim 2, D1 discloses a three-dimensional data decoding method (FIG. 7), comprising: obtaining, from a bitstream, including encoded geometry information of each of three-dimensional points (a module M4 obtains, optionally from a bitstream F1, a coding mode information data CMID indicating if either an octree-based decoding mode or a projection-based decoding mode has to be used for obtaining a decoded colored point cloud DPC, [0190]); and decoding the encoded geometry information of each of the three-dimensional points based on the decoding method indicated by the information, wherein in the decoding of the encoded geometry information: when the information indicates a first decoding method using an octree, one or more parameters used for the decoding in the first decoding method are obtained from the bitstream (If the coding mode information data CMID is representative of the octree-based coding mode OCM, then in step 720, the decoder DEC1 obtains an octree information data OID representative of an octree-based structure O, a leaf node information data LID indicating if a leaf cube of said octree-based structure O includes a leaf point and a color for each of said leaf point, [0192]); and when the information indicates a second decoding method without using the octree, the one or parameters are not obtained from the bitstream (If the coding mode information data CMID is representative of the projection-based coding mode PCM, in step 740, the decoder DEC2 decodes, from a bitstream F4, projection information data representative of at least one face of a cube, and decodes at least one pair of texture TIi and depth DIi images from a bitstream F3, [0195]).
D1 is silent to teaching that a geometry data unit and a header including information indicating a decoding method. However, the claimed limitation is well known in the art as evidenced by D2.
In the same field of endeavor, D2 teaches a geometry data unit and a header including information indicating a decoding method (each V-PCC unit has a V-PCC unit header and a V-PCC unit payload. The V-PCC unit header describes the V-PCC unit type, [0095]; V-PCC units with unit types 2, 3, and 4, may respectively be defined (e.g., in the V-PCC CD) as occupancy, geometry, and attribute data units, [0096]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of D1 with the teaching of D2 in order to reduce bitstream overhead.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PING Y HSIEH whose telephone number is (571)270-3011. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-4pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Mehmood can be reached at (571) 272-2976. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PING Y HSIEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2664
Prosecution Insights